3
$\begingroup$

Let me start from path integral formulation in quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. In QM, we have $$ U(x_b,x_a;T) = \langle x_b | U(T) |x_a \rangle= \int \mathcal{D}q e^{iS} \tag{1} $$ $|x_a \rangle$ is an eigenstate of position operator $\hat{x}$.

In QFT we have $$ U(\phi_b,\phi_a;T) = \langle \phi_b | U(T) |\phi_a \rangle= \int \mathcal{D}\phi e^{iS} \tag{2} $$ $| \phi_a \rangle $ is an eigenstate of field operator $\hat{\phi}(x)$.

By analogy with QM, it is tempting to relate $$|\phi \rangle \leftrightarrow |x \rangle \tag{3} $$

However, in Peskin and Schroeder's QFT, p24, by computing it is said

$$ \langle 0 | \phi(\mathbf{x}) | \mathbf{p} \rangle = e^{i \mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{x}} \tag{2.42} $$ We can interpret this as the position-space representation of the single-particle wavefunction of the state $| \mathbf{p} \rangle$, just as in nonrelativistic quantum mechanics $\langle \mathbf{x} | \mathbf{p} \rangle \propto e^{i \mathbf{p} \cdot \mathbf{x}} $ is the wavefunction of the state $|\mathbf{p}\rangle$.

Based on the quoted statement, seems $$\hat{\phi}(x) | 0 \rangle \leftrightarrow | x \rangle \tag{4} $$

If relations (3) and (4) are both correct, I should have $$\hat{\phi} ( \hat{\phi} | 0 \rangle ) = \phi(x) ( \hat{\phi}| 0 \rangle ) \tag{5}$$ seems Eq. (5) is not correct. At least I cannot derive Eq. (5).

How to reconcile analogies (3) and (4)?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It's not clear what you're trying to write with eq. 5, how are you defining $\phi$ without a hat? $\endgroup$ – zzz Jul 23 '14 at 13:22
  • $\begingroup$ I mean $\hat{\phi}(x_1) | \phi_1 \rangle = \phi_1(x_1) | \phi_1 \rangle$, without hat is the eigenvalue of field operator. $\endgroup$ – user26143 Jul 23 '14 at 13:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Gotcha. No $\hat\phi|0\rangle$ is not an eigenvector of $\hat\phi$. You can see this, for example, by writing out $\hat\phi$ in terms of creation and annihilation operators, then compare $\hat\phi|0\rangle$ against $\hat\phi^2 |0\rangle$, and observe that one is not a scalar multiple of the other. So as you suspected, eq. 5 is not correct. $\endgroup$ – zzz Jul 23 '14 at 14:36
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. So $\langle 0 | \hat{\phi}(x) | p \rangle$ is just an analogy of $\langle x | p \rangle$. It does not imply $\hat{\phi}(x) | 0 \rangle$ is an eigenstate of $\hat{\phi}(x)$ anyway. $\endgroup$ – user26143 Jul 23 '14 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ Yes that's right. $\endgroup$ – zzz Jul 23 '14 at 15:04
5
$\begingroup$
  1. No $\hat\phi|0\rangle$ is not an eigenvector of $\hat\phi$. You can see this, for example, by writing out $\hat\phi$ in terms of creation and annihilation operators, then compare $\hat\phi|0\rangle$ against $\hat\phi^2|0\rangle$, and observe that one is not a scalar multiple of the other. So as you suspected, eq. 5 is not correct

  2. To obtain some analogy of $| x\rangle$, you can just take a fourier transform of $a^\dagger(p)$ to get $a^\dagger(x)$, and $a^\dagger(x)|0 \rangle \equiv |x \rangle$ is the best analogy of $|x \rangle$ that I can think of

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $a^\dagger(x)|0\rangle$ is not analogous to $|x\rangle$, but to the 1st excited eigenstate of some Hamiltonian (like $a^\dagger(x)|0\rangle=|1\rangle$ for the QHO). The QFT analog of the position eigenstates $\hat x |x\rangle=x|x\rangle$ are the field eigenstates $\hat\phi(x)|\phi\rangle=\phi(x)|\phi\rangle$. Just as $\hat x$ defines the wave function $\Psi(x)=\langle x|\Psi\rangle$ in QM, $\hat \phi$ defines the wave functional $\Psi[\phi]=\langle\phi|\Psi\rangle$ in QFT. $\endgroup$ – alexchandel 2 days ago
4
$\begingroup$

You can utilize the construction of the $Q$ space, as described in Reed and Simon vol.2, page 228-230.

Oversimplifying, you can make the analogy $\lvert \phi\rangle \sim \lvert x\rangle$, but the associated momentum is not $\hat{p}$, but $\hat{\pi}$ (the canonical conjugate momentum of the field $\hat{\phi}$).

With slightly more precision: the Fock space is isomorphic to an $L^2$ space where $\hat{\phi}$ acts as the multiplication by the function $x$ (is a "variable" of the $L^2$ space), and $\hat{\pi}$ as the (functional) derivative $-i\frac{\delta}{\delta x}$; and in this context you can define the "eigenfunctions" (they do not belong to the $L^2$ obviously) $\lvert\phi\rangle$ and $\lvert\pi\rangle$ with the usual meaning as (infinite dimensional) position and momentum eigenfunctions. The precise construction is detailed in the reference above.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.